Can we take the simple approach?

[kennyh]

Two questions.

1. If I am half of a joint account and I enter into legal proceedings (in this instance challenging the level of charges - not the bank's right to raise charges) and lose, then if I'm not worth a 'carrot' (name not on any deeds and no earnings to attach) can 'they' go after the other named person on the account, for costs?

2. When claiming back cr.card charges I always quote "It was held in earlier actions (and I can provide examples if required) that a contractual party can only recover damages for an actual loss or liquidated losses. It is clear that your charges do not reflect any actual and or real loss." and I believe this is included in UTCCR. If this IS the law of this land then is it not 'deployable' when claiming back bank charges?

After all, we're not challenging the banks right to charge - merely the level at which they do so. One also wonders whether BCOBs could be used in unison.

Thoughts please.

[BankFodder]

1 - Probably

 

2 - UTCCR does not apply to core revenue. The Supreme Court held that bank charge are core revenue.

However, the court did say that did not say that the charges were fair. The OFT has said they are unfair. I believe that charges could be recovered under BCOBS if someone has the get-up-and-go to try it out

[kennyh]

Thanks Banky.

Looks like I've a heap of study to do on BCOBs; I'd only be playing Soduko to try preventing my little grey cell from suffering atrophy anyway!

Any input from the gathered masses would be gratefully received.

Once I 'cobble' a case together should I air it in the thread or consult by pm?

[kennyh]

Banky - anyone, do we know whether we can legitimately apply BCOB principles to actions prior to the introduction of the Code?

I'm still coming to terms with the concept of the (as I see them) looser conditions; certainly wider sweeping and VERY powerful. After being comparatively confined to various items of law, getting (horrible word) my head around this possible new found freedom, I find taxing but, there again, I am a wrinkly.

Also seeking to differentiate (should it be necessary) between the level of charges and a charge per se. Help here would also be appreciated.

[kennyh]

Included in some of the informative notes placed on the forum earlier

All the test case did was rule out that the price of bank charges could not be used to assess fairness under this regulation. So the old argument that charges are levied at £35 but it only costs the banks £2' has gone. Yet there are many other arguments other than price which can indicate unfairness – especially in combination...

Was this information actually alluding to BCOBs or purely the OFT action?

[kennyh]

Bump!bump! The followingis designed to bring me up to date before I commence action.

Question: Has anyone, as yet, successfully and publically sued using the BCOB provisions.

Alternatively is it possible to encapsulate those attempts that have been made to sue any of the banks using BCOBs but have been 'obliged' not to disclose details.So many things have been in the 'air' that I need to reconsolidate before taking any action.

Reasoning - and given my wrinklyness this may well prove to be flawed- a fee charged (unless for a tangible service agreed between both parties) is - bye and large- a penalty.

If imposed unilaterally by a financial organisation, is it reasonable to sue for recompense deploying the BCOB principal of 'fairness' to support one's claim?

Similarly, is the time now ripe to challenge the level of charges imposed; and yes - I know that OFT challenged fairness under the wrong piece of law and the Supreme Court sent them packing.

But are we now really prevented from challenging charges in any way??

Edited August 29, 2012 by kennyh
include items omitted

[RogerHarris]

Bump!bump! The followingis designed to bring me up to date before I commence action.

Question: Has anyone, as yet, successfully and publically sued using the BCOB provisions.

Alternatively is it possible to encapsulate those attempts that have been made to sue any of the banks using BCOBs but have been 'obliged' not to disclose details.So many things have been in the 'air' that I need to reconsolidate before taking any action.

Reasoning - and given my wrinklyness this may well prove to be flawed- a fee charged (unless for a tangible service agreed between both parties) is - bye and large- a penalty.

If imposed unilaterally by a financial organisation, is it reasonable to sue for recompense deploying the BCOB principal of 'fairness' to support one's claim?

Similarly, is the time now ripe to challenge the level of charges imposed; and yes - I know that OFT challenged fairness under the wrong piece of law and the Supreme Court sent them packing.

But are we now really prevented from challenging charges in any way??

 

I had Santander back down to basically whatever i asked from them after waiving a list of BCOB at their branch managers.

 

 

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B_wcM5ZfmEE5TjRiU0JBM0xZYzQ/edit?pli=1

 

They gave into every demand, I am beginning to wonder what i could have got out them now, but so far

 

1. All charges refunded.

2. Hardship for my hassle to be donated to charity (i left amount blank to be curious, they actually provided 66% of charges amount on top)

3. Written apologies from the manager

4. Written statement they will change branch policy. i.e. When charges start they will investigate fully if faults at their end (believe it when i see it though)

[RogerHarris]

BTW i would say keep it general and profuse. Hit them with a large list of BCOB you can levy against them, that will overload their lawyers (who they will consult)

 

I dunno i also tried the specific point of hold agents who make decisions legally responsible. It was kind of a two pronged attack.

 

1. Overwhelm them with a list of possible general charges, when you look into it, its easy to make a very long list. Do they really have resources to figure out which combo will and will not work. I seriously doubt that.

 

2. Be very specific you will go after anybody who works for them as a specific target. Be very specific as to BCOB, law and make it clear they will worsen your disposition toward a specific individual f they try to get clever. I made a separate document for that aspect alone.

[RogerHarris]

oh yeh and to add the knockout punch at the end make it clear how the individual staff and the bank (name the branch as a target) will be subject to any press and consumer exposure you can produce..

 

i.e The branch name and staff can end up with their specific names appearing in google beside it.

 

However having kicked on a triple attack i now have no idea which one did the job. maybe the combo had what it took.

[kennyh]

Many thanks Roger; I too have had minor 'results' from Santander - now I'm going to go at RBS.

As per #2 above from Banky

I believe that charges could be recovered under BCOBS

if someone has the get-up-and-go to try it out

I'm going to give BCOBs a serious look. Any contributions gratefully accepted particularly since I'm working on the basis that if current circumstances allow a BCOBs approach then how about much older charges and circumstances? Unfair now so unfair then?

[RogerHarris]

I think approach is they key. I have a pretty revengeful im going to make something a major project if they start messing around with my life in an immoral or dishonorable manner. I wasnt even going to allow them the chance to settle, and go straight to court, but then the branch manager had been OK with me.

 

So anyway the point about making something a big creative project, attack on as many fronts is not what everybody will do. The receiver of your attack will pick up on just how much effort you are putting into to it and respond correspondingly. Overdo it on as many fronts as possible if you want to get somewhere, it gives plenty of strategies when they try to block one, just have another. Also try to go way over at least on what you see the average person would do. They tune their responses to the average persons actions.

 

That is how to win at least my experience in such things.